Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > October > 11
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Editorial: Electing justices outdated; hurts court’s standing
The Ohio Supreme Court gave Sen. Jon Husted the benefit of the doubt.
In the fight over whether he is a resident of Kettering and can vote in Montgomery County, it said:
“Because of the sometimes conflicting nature of these sections (of voter-residency law), when multiple sections are applicable — as here — it is difficult to find by clear and convincing evidence that a person is not a resident of the county claimed.”
In other words, yes, there are sections of law that suggest that Sen. Husted is not a resident of Kettering; but other sections suggest he meets the standards.
The court was right to give him the benefit of the doubt. It had plenty of legal reason. And legislators should have a lot of leeway in these matters. Sen. Husted married a Columbus woman while serving in the House of Representatives and served as speaker of the House, an especially demanding job. He lived as one might expect under the circumstances. That shouldn’t deprive him of the right to vote in his district.
Still, we have here an awkward situation. Sen. Husted is a Republican, as is the entire court. Indeed, every Republican who has voted on the Husted matter has voted in his favor, while all the Democrats have opposed him.
Moreover, legitimate qualms can be raised about the court’s decision. The decision never mentions the main precedent that Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner cited in her decision against Sen. Husted. And the court embraces the view that he intends to return to Montgomery County, even though he is running for statewide office and his wife is from Columbus.
When Secretary Brunner ruled against Sen. Husted, he and other Republicans said the reason was partisanship. Now that the court has ruled, Democrats are saying or implying that the reason is partisanship. Nobody can put those concerns to rest.
This case arises in the wake of other high-profile decisions by the state’ top court. The court shot down Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland’s plan to open racetracks to slot machines without a vote by the public.
It also rejected a challenge to part of the CAT (commercial activity tax), a central part of the state’s economic structure.
Inevitably at a time like this, attention focuses on the fact that the court is entirely Republican and that its members are elected.
In truth, the court is not on a partisan toot. Its decision about slot machines seems obvious. Gov. Strickland was claiming too much power to extend gambling.
The CAT was passed by the Republicans in 2005. Yet Democrats wanted this ruling as much. Few in Columbus wanted yet another budget crisis now.
If not a partisan toot, what these cases do suggest is that the court has a crucial role. And, therefore, minimizing the amount of cynicism about court decisions would be a good thing.
As Dayton Daily New Columbus correspondent Bill Hershey reports in Sunday’s paper, Chief Justice Thomas Moyer worries that the court’s credibility is undermined by the importance of money in court elections, especially because most of the money often comes from groups with clear financial interests in court decisions: insurance companies, trial lawyers and the like.
Justice Moyer promotes some sort of “merit selection” process to pick justices without an election, which many states already have. (To keep a role for voters, justices might be subjected to voter disapproval after serving a term.)
Such a process does not completely eliminate all concerns about partisanship. But it does give courts more credibility than the Ohio Supreme Court has.
It also reduces the advantages to a candidate with a well- known name or a lot of money or a background in elective office.
It reduces the burdens on voters to learn about multiple races, which they often fail to do. And it reduces the role of vacuous, misleading television ads.
The chief is right. Ohio needs this reform.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics
